M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

28,08,508 as bogus purchases. Therefore, the\nsubsequent production of “DUBIOUS EVIDENCES\"\nduring the course of assessment proceedings is to be\nrejected.\nFurther, she analyzed the statements as below:\n(B) In the case of Sayyad Ebrahim:- Bogus entry\ni.\nEvidence to be rejected for the AY 2013-14 on the\nfollowing reasons:\nName in the books

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

28,61,820/- whereby disallowing the expenses on purchases at Rs.9,62,97,006/- and Rs.11,94,65,150/- respectively. ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 42 7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues, among others, with the CIT (A). After taking into account the assessee's contentions and also the reasoning of the AO in disallowing

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

28,61,820/- whereby disallowing the expenses on purchases at Rs.9,62,97,006/- and Rs.11,94,65,150/- respectively. ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 42 7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues, among others, with the CIT (A). After taking into account the assessee's contentions and also the reasoning of the AO in disallowing

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Thus, an admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. In such circumstances, it is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concerned with documentary evidence and thereby dispel the statement so rendered

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Thus, an admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. In such circumstances, it is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concerned with documentary evidence and thereby dispel the statement so rendered

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Thus, an admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. In such circumstances, it is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concerned with documentary evidence and thereby dispel the statement so rendered

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Thus, an admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. In such circumstances, it is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concerned with documentary evidence and thereby dispel the statement so rendered

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

28 of 40 51. He further submits that assessee has never purchased any goods from the first party M/s Vital Trexim Private Limited. These facts were before the assessing officer on 23/3/2022 and subsequently also. In the assessment order also, the learned assessing officer has not shown any evidence with respect to the purchases made by the assessee from this

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

28 of 40 51. He further submits that assessee has never purchased any goods from the first party M/s Vital Trexim Private Limited. These facts were before the assessing officer on 23/3/2022 and subsequently also. In the assessment order also, the learned assessing officer has not shown any evidence with respect to the purchases made by the assessee from this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

28 of 40 51. He further submits that assessee has never purchased any goods from the first party M/s Vital Trexim Private Limited. These facts were before the assessing officer on 23/3/2022 and subsequently also. In the assessment order also, the learned assessing officer has not shown any evidence with respect to the purchases made by the assessee from this

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

28 of 40 51. He further submits that assessee has never purchased any goods from the first party M/s Vital Trexim Private Limited. These facts were before the assessing officer on 23/3/2022 and subsequently also. In the assessment order also, the learned assessing officer has not shown any evidence with respect to the purchases made by the assessee from this

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

bogus purchase in assessment year 2018-19. In view of these facts which is clearly coming out of the AO’s order, we see no merit in the conclusion of the PCIT that the AO has not examined the facts and not done proper verification. 27. With regard to the argument that the assessee’s case needs to be considered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

28 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\n51.\nHe further submits that assessee has never purchased any goods\nfrom the first party M/s Vital Trexim Private Limited. These facts\nwere before the assessing officer on 23/3/2022 and subsequently\nalso. In the assessment order also, the learned assessing officer has\nnot shown any evidence with respect to the purchases made